posted at 9:27 pm on November 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

A pleasing melody to the libertarian ear, but I’m honestly not sure which social issues they think McConnell and Boehner might push. There’s not much they can do with abortion thanks to constitutional limitations; in theory, I suppose they could propose some sort of federal ban on gay marriage, but doing that would be gambling with their newfound advantage among independents. Is GOProud suggesting that they not bring a bill to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” to the floor if the Pentagon review is favorable to doing so? Boehner actually wouldn’t have to act at all — remember, the House voted to repeal it this summer — and Reid still controls the agenda in the Senate.

So what, precisely, are we talking about here? Stem-cell research?

Poll after poll confirms that the Tea Party’s laser focus on issues of economic freedom and limited government resonated with the American people on Election Day. The Tea Party movement galvanized around a desire to return to constitutional government and against excessive spending, taxation and government intrusion into the lives of the American people…

Already, there are Washington insiders and special interest groups that hope to co-opt the Tea Party’s message and use it to push their own agenda – particularly as it relates to social issues. We are disappointed but not surprised by this development. We recognize the importance of values but believe strongly that those values should be taught by families and our houses of worship and not legislated from Washington, D.C.

We urge you to stay focused on the issues that got you and your colleagues elected and to resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.

Follow the link to see the signatories; among them is blogosphere fave (and strong Palin supporter) Tammy Bruce. Not all of them are socially liberal either: At least one, Tea Party Patriots council member Ralph King, describes himself as personally socially conservative but wants the GOP to stay laser-focused on spending issues. One poll I haven’t seen but which would be worth taking is how many tea partiers fall into King’s camp versus how many follow the DeMint principle that fiscal conservatism is actually a path to social conservatism. The two aren’t entirely mutually exclusive: One could earnestly follow King’s lead on fiscal conservatism to the exclusion of all other issues and end up with a more socially conservative society (that’s what DeMint is banking on), but I’d find it fascinating to see tea partiers polled on whether they’d still pursue fiscally conservative policies if they thought it’d lead to a more socially liberal culture. (Which it would, if the libertarians had their way in shrinking government in social matters too.) Would they? I’m … not so sure.

Update: A line from the letter that I didn’t quote: “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party.” They’re right about that, actually:

Only 17 percent say the election results were a mandate for the GOP, with seven in ten saying that the midterms were more a rejection of the Democrats’ policies.

“That’s the classic pattern in elections like these,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “In 1994, the last time the Republicans bumped the Democrats from power on Capitol Hill, only 18 percent thought that those midterms elections were a mandate for the GOP. In 2006, when the Democrats took control, only 27 percent thought that was a mandate for the Dems. Most Americans seem to believe that these elections were ‘throw-the-bums-out’ events.”

According to the survey, 43 percent of the public has a favorable opinion of the Republican party, with 48 percent saying they see the GOP in an unfavorable way.

Update: Patrick Ishmael put together a quickie questionnaire based on this post. Sound off!

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

I have read most but not all of this thread because the relativistic protection for life that is being promoted by those who want to disregard the Constitutional guarantee of the right to life (The Constitution covers all 50 states last time I checked, and do they think slavery or rape should be legalized if states vote for it? If not, why not?) is either stretching past recognition or just disregarding all logic, Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections, and the proper understanding of Federalism and states rights.

I also couldn’t take much more when Jimbo3 got into bragging in his admissions of his barbaric beliefs of when human beings should be “poisoned” or “smothered”, and that people “with brains” should be the ones to carry out these atrocities. Apparently, whoever “has brains” in his book gets a pass at reducing themselves and others to less than animals and violating the defenseless in the most disgusting of ways.

This is all a long way of saying that you have been dog-piled here like I haven’t seen in a long time and you must be saying something very right and very truthful because so many have attacked you with ad hominems, badly reasoned and morally bankrupt arguement and enough strawmen to man an army.

God bless you and thank you for staying so strong, right4life!! You have courage that I have not seen from many here, especially those who would indulge in the most cowardly act of all, that is, taking the life of another who cannot even defend themselves, and then justifying it as if it’s normal.

What Jimb3 has advocated was seen in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. The fact that he has not been strongly rebuked by many here raises the hairs on the back of my neck. This whole thread is revelatory of more than many here seem to realize about themselves and others.

But you have stood for those who cannot speak or defend themselves, against those who imitate persons who History has condemned. You have chosen the Better Part, Right4Life, and it shall not be taken away from you.

This is all a long way of saying that you have been dog-piled here like I haven’t seen in a long time and you must be saying something very right and very truthful because so many have attacked you with ad hominems, badly reasoned and morally bankrupt arguement and enough strawmen to man an army.

thank you, you are a kind and gracious lady!

God bless you and thank you for staying so strong, right4life!! You have courage that I have not seen from many here, especially those who would indulge in the most cowardly act of all, that is, taking the life of another who cannot even defend themselves, and then justifying it as if it’s normal.

thank you dear lady, that means a great deal to me!

God bless you…

when I saw dark-star attacking you the other day on a thread, I thought that was cowardly and despicable…so I went after him.

But you have stood for those who cannot speak or defend themselves, against those who imitate persons who History has condemned. You have chosen the Better Part, Right4Life, and it shall not be taken away from you.

I don’t know what to say….except thank you!

May the Lord Bless you and keep you. May He make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you!

In case you think I’m wrong about America wanting the government to make everything okay, ask yourself this: when was the last time you complained about the govenrment not doing enough to “create jobs”.

As if it were possible to create a job.

Work does not exist for the sake of someone to be paid to do it. America believes that it does, and has believed this for more than a century now.

Government does not create jobs. Businesses do not create jobs. No one creates jobs. You don’t own your job. You aren’t guaranteed anything in this world but the necessity of living by the “sweat of your face”.
Jobs exist as a consequence of the division of labor in the face of an openly hostile world. Work is not what we do between vacations. It is what we must do. If we don’t do it, the world will swallow us up in privation and misery. The best, most efficient and most moral means of doing it is through voluntary individual contract within the marketplace.

If you give people free will to make their own choices btw good & evil, then tnhat is when the choice actually means something.
Which is why Christians believe what they believe.
You cannot force morality, charity, good behavior, etc. by browbeating people, taxing them against their will, being nasty to them, etc.
Ah this is wasted typing here I’m afraid.

Badger40 on November 16, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Everything you state above is a given. Who, specifically, is disagreeing with the above assertions? And which assertions have been specifically challenged? And in what context? And if these aren’t just strawmen that are being put out to make it seem as though someone here is arguing against the above points, even though no one has, what is the reason for the above obvious, sky is blue, grass is green, statements?

A question to the so-cons here: would it really be acceptable to most of you to delegate issues like gay marriage and abortion to the states?

Dark-Star on November 16, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Absolutely. Did you know States may have a State Religion? Our founders believed We the people would vote with our feet. I would be a lot happier if States could choose on those issues and many others. Then We could choose to live in any State we agreed with. Let the State flourish or wither according to their Policies. Keep the Fed out of propping any State up that chose destructive Policies. Let the State decide if they want to redistribute the wealth of their citizens. I believe many States that chose Redistribution would lose it’s wealth to States that chose not to. This would be a good thing.

I do try to remember that not all right-wingers are starchcollared, bitter Puritan leftovers, despite stuff like this.

Dark-Star on November 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Looks like you don’t know your history too well here darkstar. Indeed, the Puritans were very intolerant of one group in particular: Roman Catholics. And the Catholic church has done more in the world to promote charity and conservative values (that find their origin in Judeo/Christianity) than any other organization in the past 2000 years. Conservatism has more in common with Roman Catholicism than it will ever have with Puritanism. And Roman Catholics, who obey Christ first, are some of the best, humanly and generally speaking, conservatives you will find anywhere. And Roman Catholicism and Purtitanism were and are quite far removed from each other.

Amen. And thank you for the Messiah link. One of the best versions I ever heard was performed in Dublin in the 1990′s on the 250th anniversary of the first performance of Handel’s Messiah which was in Dublin! The entire work or selected works can be found on CD and the orchestra/chorale that performed it is named St. Martin’s in the Field.

A question to the so-cons here: would it really be acceptable to most of you to delegate issues like gay marriage and abortion to the states?

Dark-Star on November 16, 2010 at 2:39 PM

Would it be acceptable to re-institute slavery and repeal womens’ right to the vote, property ownership, etc., and delegate these things to the states?

Do you not recognize that some human rights transcend all political/geographical boundaries and that the Founders knew this, ergo, the Creator endowed right to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? Do you think the Founders envisioned or would permit that these overarching God given rights that they took the time to enshrine in our Founding Documents, to be applied to all peoples at all times, would be shredded in order to satisfy a completely warped and uninformed view of state’s rights?

he entire work or selected works can be found on CD and the orchestra/chorale that performed it is named St. Martin’s in the Field.

I’ll have to look it up…have you heard the version of amazing grace from the movie about Wilberforce, amazing grace? its a great movie and a great version of the song…at the end at his death they use the bagpipes…very moving…

Here is a question to be taken at face value and is not meant as a provocation, although it is asked from a Christian pov. Answer or not at your own discretion.

If, as you stated in an earlier post here, you “dearly love” Jesus Christ, what will you tell Him when He asks you why you approve of abortion being allowed in individual states in the U.S.A., (be it one state, thirty-five, or forty-nine), that choose to legalize this killing of His unborn children, even though your support violates the Commandment, “Thou Shalt not Kill” and His teaching, “whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto Me?

very good points…but don’t hold your breath for a rational response from those foamin-at-the-mouth liberal (faux conservative ) wackos.

they cannot move beyond talking points…independent thinking is not allowed….as this thread has proven.

right4life on November 16, 2010 at 8:04 PM

Although the temperature can get almost intolerable under the dog pile, right4life, and I have made the same mistake myself from time to time, may I respectfully say that, at least in my case, I find that making the case but trying to avoid personal name-calling is a way in which you will sleep more peacefullly. :)

its a great movie…and wilberforce was such a great man…more than anyone else he ended slavery. and transformed britain, along with his mentors, John newton (the author of amazing grace) the ex-slaver…and his other mentor John Wesley, whose last letter was to Wilberforce…

Although the temperature can get almost intolerable under the dog pile, right4life, and I have made the same mistake myself from time to time, may I respectfully say that, at least in my case, I find that making the case but trying to avoid personal name-calling is a way in which you will sleep more peacefullly. :)

tigerlily on November 16, 2010 at 8:19 PM

thank you but I sleep well…I don’t think about these scum when I’m not on the board….

and I tend to like Charles Martel’s brand of christianity…thank God for Charles Martel….or we would all be muslim.

Without men like Charles Martel and the Crusades, we would all be trapped in the 7th century madhouse known as Islam.

P.S. On EWTN, if you get it, they had a really detailed, incredibly interesting series on the threat of Islam in the Middle Ages, and the Church’s defense of Europe and Christianity. Maybe Bush took a page out of the Church’s book, because he took the battle to them just as the Church did, although, muzzies did make frightening inroads, as in Tours. Don’t know if they are still running the series but maybe they have CD’s on their website. It was a British couple that hosted the show and the husband was so incredibly knowledgeable.

oh yea, I’ve heard of the mahdi. While I take people as I find them and don’t judge all muslims to be mad, the actual ideology of islam is, as seen through their own words, actions and doctrines, simply diabolical. Their open and widespread pedophilia in Afghanistan is a demonic hypocrite’s dream and their treatment of women beggars description. It makes me afraid for our nation when our “president” runs around the world bragging about what “the Prophet, Peace be upon him”, says, what the “Holy Koran” says and the “revelation” of Islam as a religion of “peace, fairness, tolerance and justice”.

He must be high all the time. We must be high to let him get away with it.

Oh, please! Can we have a seminar on the Fourteenth Amendment please? I’m weary of so many saying we need to follow the Constitution and being so clueless about it. tigerlily, now why do you suppose each state has its own Constitution? It’s because the federal one doesn’t cover states…except that the Fourteenth Amendment (thanks to the Republican Party from whose founding principles it came) enjoins on states that they must apply the Bill of Rights in their jurisdictions. Read the recent McDonald decision regarding statewide gun bans. I’m tellin’ ya, we need a seminar to fix this ignorance which is rampant.

I tried to take the poll and it wouldn’t load. I won’t vote for ANYONE who is not pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. I’m Catholic. Nine of the last ten presidents were elected with 50% or more of the Catholic vote. The “trucers” need to back off if they don’t want four more years of Obama with his getting 80% or more of the Catholic vote. There are 67 million of us and the big debate in the Catholic world is whether or not we should put prolife/profamily ahead of social justice for the poor, so all this “truce” talk is nothing more than a witch’s brew for four more years of Obama. Just sayin’…..

Oh please, yourself. I don’t know where you got the idea that state constitutions can superimpose themselves over the Constitution of the United States, which is also known as the Law of the Land. This Law of the Land overarches and applies to all states at all times. No state may legislate in a way that violates the Law of the Land. You may want to take a few classes instead of talking about giving them. And the fact that in 1973 the Supreme Court in essence shredded the Constitution along with it’s Founder’s insistence that the government acknowledge the God given right to Life, and we don’t recognize that as a wrecking ball tearing the nation apart, is truly cause for alarm. Jus’ sayin.

I tried to take the poll and it wouldn’t load. I won’t vote for ANYONE who is not pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. I’m Catholic. Nine of the last ten presidents were elected with 50% or more of the Catholic vote. The “trucers” need to back off if they don’t want four more years of Obama with his getting 80% or more of the Catholic vote. There are 67 million of us and the big debate in the Catholic world is whether or not we should put prolife/profamily ahead of social justice for the poor, so all this “truce” talk is nothing more than a witch’s brew for four more years of Obama. Just sayin’…..

You say that Terri Schiavo should have been “smothered or poisoned years ago”. You say that you are serious about that statement. You say that according to wikipedia (what serious adult uses wikipedia?), her brains were “almost mostly liquid”.
“Liquid” brains are a medical impossiblity in a living human being, and for someone of your age to quote such a fourth grade assessment is really telling of your intelligence level and/or your rush to prove she needed the murder you would so have loved to “give” her and are so joyous in it’s completion.

And although your talk is like a fourth grader, it is specifically like that of a really ugly-kill-your-own-parents-and-strangle-your-kid-brother kind of fourth grader.

No matter how disabled another human being, it is our right, duty and privilege to care for them as best we can until GOD ALMIGHTY, who created them, takes them back to Himself.

This loving care for another who cannot ever repay us is what makes us truly human, strong and beautiful in character. It is what makes a society and people strong and free, respecting the gift of human life and dignity.

The willful murders you propose and promote result in depraved individuals and a predatory, soul-less, enslaved and enslaving society.

The fact that you believe it is your right to savagely murder the unborn, even admitting that you would push to abort your own grandchildren, and now admitting your wish to savagely murder those who are severely disabled, and the fact that you spout such evil on this site makes me not want to even come here anymore.

I never want to see any more glimpses of the dark, squirming, pornographic evil that resides in your mind. You should be ashamed of yourself and on your knees begging for God to change you and forgive you.

If you’ve never done that, as I have and I suspect many HAirians have also, you should waste no time in hitting the floor.

I don’t know if others experienced this, but I felt nauseated when I read your posts. I will say a prayer for you, but please, if you see this, don’t answer expecting me to answer. And don’t think for one minute your swinging away to another subject like living wills, or football, for that matter, will ever erase your self-revelation of the monstrous deaths that you would like to inflict upon others who are helpless and defenseless.

The day in which you are found helpless and defenseless is the day in which you will be begging that those in charge of you are not anything like you.

tigerlily on November 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Tigerlily:

“The autopsy reported that at her death, Terri Schiavo had a brain weight of 615 grams, half that of a normal brain and significantly less than Karen Ann Quinlan’s, which weighed 835 grams. She had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo, a condition marked by enlarged ventricles filled with cerebrospinal fluid, because of this profound loss of cortical volume.”

You have made my point. Most of her skull was filled with liquid brain. She was not a functioning human being and could never recover.

As to my opinions and positions disgusting you, I am sorry that you have had such a sheltered life and also sorry that you believe (apparently) that God has appointed you the controller of people’s beliefs. If you can’t stand reading those positions because of your delicate sensibilities, perhaps you should seek professional help. I am not ashamed of them in the least and suspect they are held by at least a significant minority of people in the US.

I have read most but not all of this thread because the relativistic protection for life that is being promoted by those who want to disregard the Constitutional guarantee of the right to life (The Constitution covers all 50 states last time I checked, and do they think slavery or rape should be legalized if states vote for it? If not, why not?) is either stretching past recognition or just disregarding all logic, Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections, and the proper understanding of Federalism and states rights.

tigerlily

And tigerlily, do tell us how it is clear that the 14th Amendment covers fetuses. There is nothing in the Constitution or that Amendment to suggest it was meant to provide rights to anyone from the moment of conception, and there is considerable language to suggest it was only meant to cover people who were “born or naturalized” or who could vote and run for office. That wouldn’t include fetuses.

I’m sure you’ll take the coward’s way out, though, and not respond because my opinions make you sick.

You have made my point. Most of her skull was filled with liquid brain. She was not a functioning human being and could never recover.
Once again Jimbo3, you are wrong.

rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Do you have a CT scan or MRI in this situation? Without that, you have no way to say whether I’m wrong or not.

That is exactly my position. Someone with brains should have smothered or poisoned her years before.
Jimbo3 on November 16, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I suspect the views you hold are held by at least a less than significant minority.

By more than eight-to-one (84%-10%), the public approves of laws that let terminally ill patients make decisions about whether to be kept alive through medical treatment. This represents a small but significant increase in support for right to die laws since 1990 (79%).

The increase in support has been more pronounced among those over the age of 50 (from 72% to 83% approval), white Catholics (from 80% to 91% approval), and among those who have given a great deal of thought to end-of-life issues (from 79% to 87% approval).

In instances where a terminally ill patient is unable to communicate, the public supports allowing the closest family member to decide whether to continue medical treatment; 74% agree with this approach, while only 15% say that relatives should not be allowed to make such decisions. Here, too, the public is united across political and demographic lines, with approximately three-quarters of Republicans (72%), Democrats (78%), and independents (74%) saying that family members should be able to make treatment decisions for sick relatives.

This strong support for allowing the removal of medical treatment and for allowing family members to make these decisions is reflected in public opinion on the Terri Schiavo controversy. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of the public say that Congress should have stayed out of the Schiavo case, while fewer than one-in-five (17%) say Congress, in its effort to ensure that Schiavo continued to receive medical treatment, did the right thing by requiring federal courts to hear the case. This is essentially unchanged from a July 2005 survey, which found only 20% saying Congress did the right thing.

A solid majority of Americans (60%) believe a person has a moral right to end their life if they are suffering great pain and have no hope of improvement. Nearly as many (53%) believe a person has a moral right to end their life if suffering from an incurable disease. But far fewer see a right to suicide in other circumstances.

Depending on how you interpret the individual questions in the survey, my views are probably held by a majority of the US.

….do tell us how it is clear that the 14th Amendment covers fetuses.
You were a fetus. It covers you to this day.

rukiddingme on November 17, 2010 at 10:19 AM

You’re avoiding my question. How is it clear from the language of the documents that the Constitution and the 14th Amendment covers fetuses before they are born?

(i) whether or not Terri was diagnosed with PVS is irrelevant. She also had a CT that showed most of her brain was liquid. Without that, you have no way to know whether these cases are similar or not.

(ii)please look at these; the US thinks that her husband had the right to make decisions with her and that she should have the right in both terminally ill cases and when there is an incurable disease (smothering or poisioning her was over the top, I agree, but clearly withdrawing food and water is supported) Nearly as many (53%) believe a person has a moral right to end their life if suffering from an incurable disease. In instances where a terminally ill patient is unable to communicate, the public supports allowing the closest family member to decide whether to continue medical treatment; 74% agree with this approach, while only 15% say that relatives should not be allowed to make such decisions. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of the public say that Congress should have stayed out of the Schiavo case, while fewer than one-in-five (17%) say Congress, in its effort to ensure that Schiavo continued to receive medical treatment, did the right thing by requiring federal courts to hear the case; and
(iii) you admit that there’s no language in the Constitution or 14th Amendment to suggest that they were intended to apply to fetuses. So explain why it is improper judicial activism for the Supreme Court to pass Roe v Wade and related cases (including the earlier case involving contraception) but yet not improper judicial activism to do what you’re suggesting.

(i)The cases do not need to be the same. You have made a statement as to how you would have dealt with the Schaivo case, the implication is clear as to how you would deal with all cases of PVS.

You know what they say about assumptions. You read my statement more broadly than I wrote or intended.

(iii) So explain how a Constitutional recognition of a fetus wouldn’t be judicial activism if there’s no language in the Constitution nor any indication from any discussion by the founders that this wasn’t intended.

You know what they say about assumptions. You read my statement more broadly than I wrote or intended.

You have a well documented history here of making outrageous statements. Now you want me to believe you did not intend to make outrageous statements?

(iii) So explain how a Constitutional recognition of a fetus wouldn’t be judicial activism if there’s no language in the Constitution nor any indication from any discussion by the founders that this wasn’t intended.
Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 12:06 PM

The unborn individual is a person, Jimbo3, it really is as simple as that.

Since you are now positing the founders intended for fetuses to be killed, we are done.

You say that Terri Schiavo should have been “smothered or poisoned years ago”. You say that you are serious about that statement. You say that according to wikipedia (what serious adult uses wikipedia?), her brains were “almost mostly liquid”.
“Liquid” brains are a medical impossiblity in a living human being, and for someone of your age to quote such a fourth grade assessment is really telling of your intelligence level and/or your rush to prove she needed the murder you would so have loved to “give” her and are so joyous in it’s completion.

And although your talk is like a fourth grader, it is specifically like that of a really ugly-kill-your-own-parents-and-strangle-your-kid-brother kind of fourth grader.

No matter how disabled another human being, it is our right, duty and privilege to care for them as best we can until GOD ALMIGHTY, who created them, takes them back to Himself.

This loving care for another who cannot ever repay us is what makes us truly human, strong and beautiful in character. It is what makes a society and people strong and free, respecting the gift of human life and dignity.

The willful murders you propose and promote result in depraved individuals and a predatory, soul-less, enslaved and enslaving society.

The fact that you believe it is your right to savagely murder the unborn, even admitting that you would push to abort your own grandchildren, and now admitting your wish to savagely murder those who are severely disabled, and the fact that you spout such evil on this site makes me not want to even come here anymore.

I never want to see any more glimpses of the dark, squirming, pornographic evil that resides in your mind. You should be ashamed of yourself and on your knees begging for God to change you and forgive you.

If you’ve never done that, as I have and I suspect many HAirians have also, you should waste no time in hitting the floor.

I don’t know if others experienced this, but I felt nauseated when I read your posts. I will say a prayer for you, but please, if you see this, don’t answer expecting me to answer. And don’t think for one minute your swinging away to another subject like living wills, or football, for that matter, will ever erase your self-revelation of the monstrous deaths that you would like to inflict upon others who are helpless and defenseless.

The day in which you are found helpless and defenseless is the day in which you will be begging that those in charge of you are not anything like you.

tigerlily on November 16, 2010 at 6:47 PM

Tigerlily:

“The autopsy reported that at her death, Terri Schiavo had a brain weight of 615 grams, half that of a normal brain and significantly less than Karen Ann Quinlan’s, which weighed 835 grams. She had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo, a condition marked by enlarged ventricles filled with cerebrospinal fluid, because of this profound loss of cortical volume.”

You have made my point. Most of her skull was filled with liquid brain. She was not a functioning human being and could never recover.

As to my opinions and positions disgusting you, I am sorry that you have had such a sheltered life and also sorry that you believe (apparently) that God has appointed you the controller of people’s beliefs. If you can’t stand reading those positions because of your delicate sensibilities, perhaps you should seek professional help. I am not ashamed of them in the least and suspect they are held by at least a significant minority of people in the US.

Jimbo3 on November 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM

I see your reading comprehension is seriously compomised. Cerebral-spinal fluid (which cushions the brain and spinal cord and is manufactured and drained by the body every day) and brain matter are two distinct and separate entities. Cerebral fluid is not another term for “liquid brians”.

As far as fluid filling the ventricles, (which are like little resevoirs located in various parts of the brain), this pathology can be, if it becomes severe, remedied through the implantion of a shunt system. I am intimately familiar with ventricular fluid build-up and it’s release through the shunt system because I have spent countless hours in the hospital and a good amount of time in consulting with some of the best neurosurgeons in the nation because my adult Godson is afflicted with this symptom due to the presence of an inoperable, yet benign brain tumor. When his shunt system becomes incapable of removing the amount of fluid build-up in a timely manner, his memory and his affect becomes that of one who is quite sleepy. If it is left unchecked, headache and vomiting, leading to paralysis and death would result.

When the system is “cleared” (the shunts malfunction every few years) he becomes alert with memory and affect back to his norm. It sounds as if Terri Schiavo may have had a fluid build up that drained, but at a diminished rate that kept too much fluid, therefore pressure, on her brain. She could have benefitted from a shunt system that could very well have improved her abilities. Not that her abilities or lack of them would ever justify the barbaric death she suffered. Whether she would ever be able to “recover” or not, she deserved care and kindness until God, who created her, called her back to Himself. She didn’t need cowardly ghouls who she could never defend herself from perpetrating her murder.

AT NO POINT WAS MY GODSON’S CEREBRAL FLUID EVER DESCRIBED AS “LIQUID BRAINS”. AT NO POINT WAS TERRI SCHIAVO’S CEREBRAL FLUID “LIQUID BRAINS”.

I would not even have had to have the experience that I did with my Godson to read your attached medical opinion and know that they were not referring to “liquid brains” and that no such thing exists in a living human being. Terri Schiavo’s brain suffered atrophy, a loss of mass, (as happens to all human beings as they age and is a common symptom of alheizmer’s patients), but at no time did her brain matter convert itself to “liquid brains”.

The fact that you do think so, and even insist on it, while providing as evidence something that refutes your ridiculous assertion, and not realizing that you have refuted your own ridiculous assertion, only supports my conclusion that you are not capable of understanding or making argument on a level of even average adult intelligence.

To argue with you would be like taking on a fourth grader. Not fair to the fourth grader and a waste of time.

Your obscene and bragging belief that the defenseless unborn and handicapped should be put to death via the savagery of abortion or being “poisoned” or “smothered with a pillow” put you outside the realm of any kind of human decency and in the company of depraved deviants, known, such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao, and unkown (that would be you) throughout history.

I’m thinking the comments on this thread do not support the OP’s central thesis. Social issues are still touchstones for much of the conservative voting base.

Social liberals, whatever their fiscal bona fides, are not viable conservative candidates, and actively working towards socially liberal policies is the third rail of conservative politics. You can put social issues on the back burner in favor of fiscal issues, but you best not turn on social conservatives. They will stay home, and you will lose.

He asks you why you approve of abortion being allowed in individual states in the U.S.A., (be it one state, thirty-five, or forty-nine), that choose to legalize this killing of His unborn children, even though your support violates the Commandment, “Thou Shalt not Kill” and His teaching, “whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto Me?

tigerlily on November 16, 2010 at 8:11 PM

I don’t approve of abortion.
Read the other thread on social issues.
I think we need a Const Amendment to protect the unborn.
Other than abortion, gay marriage & all that stuff needs to be taken care of in your state.
And in my state I will fight tooth & nail to get the right thing done.
So please do not attribute me to the approval of abortion bcs I espouse state rights.
I do not believe it is right to kill an unborn human being at all.
Unfortunately, it is happening as we kibbitz over what is a person & what is not.
I think the fertilized egg is the best place to start.
But then there will be some who want to say sperm counts & eggs count & birth control shouldn’t be legal & on & on.
We’ve got to come to an agreement about the fertilized egg, zygote, what have you & go from there toward a Cosnt Am.to protect a human fetus.